Late-term abortions aren't so often about health of mother or fetus
Feb 07, 2019 | 1:05 PM
So, our friends on the editorial board of The Baltimore Sun have offered their opinion on President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, and to no one’s surprise, it was negative. Even worse, they decided to focus on the one area any right thinking human should agree on: Late-term abortions (“Trump goes full demagogue on abortion,” Feb. 6).
Gone are the days of President Bill Clinton’s mantra of “safe, legal and rare.” Now, it’s abortions on demand and if you dare say anything about it, you are accused of trying to control women’s bodies.
The editorial states that “Most commonly, this is about a pregnancy in which the fetus is no longer viable (usually because of abnormalities that went undetected earlier in pregnancy) or in which the mother’s life and health are in grave danger.” Hmm, where did they get this information?
There isn’t a lot of research on the subject, but the best information we have comes from a study from Dr. Diana Greene Foster, a professor at the University of California at San Francisco’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health. It found women who got later abortions were mostly unmarried and many were already mothers. A Congressional Research Service report published in April 2018 quoted Dr. Foster, “[t]here aren’t good data on how often later abortions are for medical reasons.”
The report goes on to state “Based on limited research and discussions with researchers in the field, Dr. Foster believes that abortions for fetal anomaly make up a small minority of later abortion and that those for life endangerment are even harder to characterize.”
In a paper published in 2013 by Dr. Foster on women who got abortions for reasons other than a danger to life or health or a fetal anomaly, they cited delays such as raising funds for the procedure, depression, substance abuse, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and experiencing their first pregnancy.
These findings fly in the face of The Sun’s editorial.
The authors also have an issue with the president’s description of the procedure (using despicable language like “ripped from the mother’s womb”). I ask, would they be all right with a medically detailed and accurate description of the procedure? Since at that point of gestation the baby is too large for it to be passed naturally, it needs to be made, well … smaller, and that’s as far as I will go with that. The procedure is horrific.
I will end with this question to the editorial board: If we all agree to allow abortions in the case of rape or incest and the health or life of the mother, would you then agree that the remaining incidents should be stopped? Of course you will not agree, so stop trying to use the 2-3 percent of abortions for those reasons as justification for the remaining 97-plus percent.